I think focusing on eating locally is more about establishing and supporting a local food culture. It's about moving away from industrialized food to a more personal thing. I don't think he's really expecting us to pretend it's the 1850s, he just wants as many prospering local farms as possible.

I think your point is on the mark: local consumption is a flea-bit on an elephant's backside if regarded as a way to offset monoculture production, which in turn is based upon economies of scale and the ability to supply homogenous product, That's

But where does the impetus for challenging monoculture come from? Perhaps it's from an inherently bourgeois mindset, but lots of popular movements started out that way. (Women's suffrage comes to mind. So does abolitionism.) So I don't think it's so much a cooking priority as a thinking priority.

If people start to value small-scale production and regional agricultural diversity over being able to buy a Red Delicious in May that looks and tastes like it was carved from wax, then it's easier to conduct the macro policy discussion in parallel.

This is one of those paper-vs-plastic issues that isn't a clear cut win for the environment. For example, let's say we try to eat local in the Northeast in the winter. That will require a lot of heated greenhouses or else we don't eat many veggies. Yet we can more easily have lots of dairy products and meat, which is what our ancestors ate during the winter, but that would further up our climate impact.

Let's try that first graf again:

I think your point is on the mark: local consumption is a flea-bite on an elephant's backside if regarded as a way to offset monoculture production, which in turn is based upon economies of scale and the ability to supply homogenous product. That's something that can only be tackled by taking on subsidies, which is a very different fight.

While incomes grow and nutritional requirements do not, food prices do grow as well.

The question is better put as how to we maintain prices such that all people can obtain adequate food. And tun to an environmentally sustainable approach.

I have so many disagreements with you!

It's easy eating local if you live in California. Even the winter is delicious. That gets a bit harder if you live in a colder climate. Try the Idaho farmer's market in January.

I disagree with you here. It's not that hard! At home, we eat basically all local all year in Pennsylvania (with the major exception of the many things we can't get locally, like grains and beans; but those are no easier in California). Pennsylvania, granted, is easier than Idaho, but a hell of a lot harder than California. We eat winter squash and potatoes and sweet potatoes and parsnips and storage apples and onions and a lot more dairy and meat than we do in the summer; some farmers have hoophouses for kale, and we roast and freeze at least one 25 pound box of tomatoes each fall. This area is actually a great place to eat locally all winter, especially since we have so many small farms that produce really high-quality meat, as long as you accept that your diet has to change. And honestly, I like my winter food, though we usually cave and buy a grapefruit in March (after months of nothing but apples, dried fruit, and whatever berries we got around to freezing the summer before, it basically makes my head explode it's so good).

I think the key issue that people ignore when considering a move to smaller local food sources is that it's not just that the delivery carbon that disappears; the production practices often significantly change the carbon pattern of the food, as is the case with grassfed beef. Grassfed cattle produce more methane, but rotational grazing - which is what the farmers around here mostly use - sequesters so much carbon in the grazing land that they end up being far superior to grainfed cattle in over-all carbon emissions. And carbon is the most immediately salient issue, but certainly not the only one (someday we're going to have to talk about soil erosion). So yeah, just cutting out the delivery fuel doesn't do much, but that's not what Michael Pollan or anyone else is advocating.

Finally, if you cut corn/soy subsidies, local food becomes more price-competitive. If you price carbon and make fuel more expensive, the whole production economy of processed food makes less sense. If people start eating high-quality local meat, almost all of them are going to have to cut meat consumption because it's expensive. This stuff doesn't compete with a local food economy, and it's hard for me to understand why you're putting them up in opposition to one another.

Ezra,

What are the four boxes that start with "Production"? Are these phases of food processing / growing? It almost seems to me they are measuring different chemical outputs...
Also, as mentioned elsewhere here, I (and Pollon) see many benefits to eating locally beyond reducing pollution from transportation.

Isn't the percentage of income argument misleading anyway? If, as I think is plausible, we now spend a smaller percentage of income on food, but a larger percentage on housing, and not just on McMansions, but basic housing, not to mention healthcare (which has also gone up as a percentage of income), telling people to spend more on food means it's got to come from somewhere else and that somewhere else is often not what we'd consider luxuries.

People who already have a lot of discretion over their spending are going to be more persuadable about paying more for better food. They just have to change their minds--not make financial sacrifices on other fronts. I would think the key would be to figure out how to make healthy, good for the planet food (whenever people figure out exactly what that is) no more expensive than "bad" food. I don't know how to do it, but that would be the key.

"It is, arguably, the most delicious change we can make to our diets"

If you live in California. If you live in Buffalo, you're probably screwed.

But yeah, the localism is strange, given that transport is not a big component of CO2 emissions.

However, it would be good for me to break the habit of buying one batch of Chilean peaches every winter. Instead, I'll eat baseballs, as they are softer and have more flavor.

State governments (possibly incented by the feds in the future) can have a major impact on local food availability: statewide land-use laws, and metro-area urban growth boundaries.

The metro-areas (as political entities that consolidate counties/cities) also create major advantages for transportation and housing programs that restructure over time the way we choose to live/work. The three counties that compose the numerous cities around Portland engage in major projects (like light rail and traffic artery planning) that probably couldn't be done otherwise.

The major food impact is visible and important. Significant agriculture areas (with lower property taxes) are protected nearby the population zones.

Bottom line: food policy, land policy, and growth policy can't be done without political action.

Oregon has both, and we greatly benefit in local food availability and have thereby created a major source of jobs, income and living-attractiveness.

"let's say we try to eat local in the Northeast in the winter" -

it's really easy to do - much easier in my experience in Central Maine than it was when I lived in the Bay Area - 1) because I have a big enough yard to garden in, so I can eat a 100 foot diet for about 40% of my veg; 2) because I can walk to an organic farm/cheese shop/bakery to get what I can't grow; and 3) because the local organic dairy guy sells his milk in all the farm stands and local stores; 4) because there are people here who know how to can and pickle and freeze and dry and were happy to teach me how to do it. So what I can't/don't grow myself I can easily buy local and preserve for myself.

You eat fresh in season so I tend to have cabbage for my salad green in winter, but as a good liberal, I promise you I enjoy my arugala even more in the spring.

It takes some space, some organization and some time. The time for the young urban crowd, I suspect is the killer, and hence you're comparing the economic and carbon effects of food commodities (local vs industrial but both purchased) with the economic and carbon effects of a garden food with industrial food. This, in my experience, would be the more fair comparison.

Let me correct that last point - the comparison is between a market and an embedded economy. When I go to the super market I don't know anyone in the supply chain. When I buy my grow most of my own and buy my groceries locally, I know everyone in the supply chain. There are real benefits and pleasure to that knowledge.

I think ethical people need to be more concerned with the amount of suffering per unit food.

I concur with North. Delivery costs (and deliciousness) are a mere slice of the issue. What Pollan illuminates in his various works is what "sham" Big Organic has turned out to be --- in some ways justified, in others not at all. He describes how large-scale organic farms have adopted some worthwhile growing practices, but then plug their wares into the industrial food chain for washing, sorting, and packaging. The negative effects accrue where organic foods are processed and preserved, such as canned and frozen organic meals.

The bottom line is that although "Big Organic" has dramatically increased the availability of organic produce and goods, it can only do so by aligning with industry. Earthbound Farms has to get its lettuce to me in New Jersey from California, and to that it needs all sorts of contraptions, even before the little bags of lettuce are put in the delivery truck. The theory is that a farm in the NY/NJ area where I'm from could get me that lettuce and wouldn't need all the carbon-producing contraptions and preservatives to package and send it to me.

In terms of a political solution, I think removal of farm subsidies as well a package of incentives (such as tax breaks, but not exclusively) for local farming would boost the local movement. More work also needs to be done to encourage and facilitate supermarkets' (from Whole Foods to Safeway) partnerships with local producers.

A question: Does Red Meat equal Mammal Meat in this context? Think of all the poor confused rabbits and pigs, wondering about their carbon footprint.

Ezra's missing the land use issue - most people live in cities, so eating locally means increasing the economic value of local farms and decreasing the incentive to convert those farms into sprawl.

I think the land use benefit far exceeds the transport issue, especially when it comes to CO2 emissions.

it's really easy to do - much easier in my experience in Central Maine than it was when I lived in the Bay Area

I'm sure it is easy to do in Maine, in its own way, but why would you want to do that?

Look, really, I like my tomatoes and bananas all year 'round.

I don't find any appreciable difference between locally grown food and non-local food.

What does make a difference? That drizzle of Portuguese olive oil I drizzled on my risotto I cooked for supper. Just a few drops really made the already divine dish out-of-this-world delicious.

It was not local, but it was vegan. I dare anyone find a better meal that's as good for the environment as what I just ate.

Localism is not the most important of Michael Pollan's positions. He criticizes the agricultural policies that have been in place since Nixon. He wants to call a halt to the knee-jerk subsidizing of agribusiness to grow even more corn and soybeans than we need at the expense of small farmers, and buy extension, artificial government support of nutrition-free junk food, at no matter what dire cost to our health and the environment.

We just moved back from Germany. Most of our produce was either from Israel or Spain (importing water from the desert?) or from the Netherlands, the land of everlasting twilight. But after one visit to Rotterdam you can see why. The country is wall-to-wall greenhouses. My cousin in Costa Rica says their best agricultural connection is with the Dutch. They not only feed Europe, they provide the orchids and lilies . . . in a postage stamp sized country.
In Germany, many people have backyard greenhouses where they grow hothouse flowers and fresh fruits and vegetables. There's a lot you can do to change culture and a popular president can do more than anyone on Earth. So I'm not so sure Pollan is wrong.

does it have to be either/or? Isn't localism + "eliminating corn and soy subsidies, pricing carbon, or cutting meat consumption" possible?

I think the idea as well as that localism is a SELL-ABLE idea that will assist the others. Localism is rooted in the idea of pricing carbon; it will get people to think about it. Localism usually will lead to less meat consumption, b/c less meat is local. And local producers often are smaller and don't benefit as much from subsidies, so there is no conflict there.

Localism is a way you sell the idea to people who care about food, not just people who care about policy. And it's the type of consumer idea that can -- and has -- spread.

Ezra,

One big thing that you are missing is that without getting people in touch with what growing food entails, no one cares.

Local eating basically requires you to be in touch. Does your super fertile area have no more farms? Why is that? etc. Also, you have to really think about how you are getting your food vs just picking up whatever you like at the supermarket.

Not only that, but it builds communities economically. When you buy local food, you are pretty much socking your income right back into your community. Most agribusiness sucks your money out of your community.

And all that in addition to deliciousness. Heck, I live in Northern illinois, in the western chicago metro area. And I eat about 70-80% local. The 20% is pretty much devoted to coffee, chocolate and wheat flour. For most people, my diet would be unnattainable, because I know how to really cook from scratch and have time to do it. Like make my own bread every day from scratch.

But I think that 25% local would be VERY easy in pretty much any area of the country. For gods sake, in the summer, if you don't have a farmers market, find a neighbor growing tomatoes/squash/whatever grows well by you and ask to buy some.

If you don't know where to look, go to www.localharvest.com. Plug in your zipcode. Be amazed at all the food you can buy and HAVE DELIVERED TO YOU that is grown in your area.

I think one obvious solution we are all missing is the cannibalism solution. Think, locally grown and zero carbon footprint! All the lefties are good atheists anyway, so what's the objection? We also need to eat deceased pets . . .

"Look, really, I like my tomatoes and bananas all year 'round."

If you grow your own tomatoes and can them, you have your own tomato soup and pasta sauce all year round. If you buy your tomatoes in January at the local supermarket, you pay for the privilege of eating red cardboard in my opinion. And you deny yourself that transcendent moment every July when you slice the first ripe tomato from the garden sprinkle a little salt on it and taste heaven again. For me, it's worth forgoing the red cardboard in January.

As for the bananas, I am not without sympathy - but I freeze some of the wildblue berries I buy at local farmstands in August and some of the blackberries I pull from the garden after the potatoes are in and some of the raspberries my neighbor gives me in July and all winter long I throw some in my oatmeal with local honey and some walnuts and consider myself lucky.

To be fair, I consider bananas a luxury good in the spring when the frozen's out and the fresh aren't ripe - so I indulge, as I do with coffee and olive oil and chocolate.

The point isn't to be an anchorite, the point is to live more closely attentive to both the seasons and my neighbors. And to note that it's just not that hard to do. Even here in the frozen north.

The point isn't to be an anchorite, the point is to live more closely attentive to both the seasons and my neighbors. And to note that it's just not that hard to do. Even here in the frozen north.

Word. There's always been trade, and there are some things it makes sense to trade. Coffee and chocolate? Yes - they're high value for low weight. Olive oil? Probably. Tomatoes and strawberries? Nope.

I also want to mention that I live in the middle of Philadelphia in a 2nd-floor apartment with a kitchen the size of a twin bed and about 4 square inches of counter space, all of which are occupied by the toaster oven. My garden space is limited to a roof porch out the back door (and my girlfriend's 4x10 community garden plot, which produced reliable greens and maybe a pint of purple cherokee tomatoes). So it's not just people in rural areas who can eat local over cold winters.

Ezra, love your food (er, bad rubric?) posts. That is all.

I think one obvious solution we are all missing is the cannibalism solution. Think, locally grown and zero carbon footprint! All the lefties are good atheists anyway, so what's the objection? We also need to eat deceased pets . . .

Posted by: Scott | October 22, 2008 3:02 PM

Not a bad idea, but you must bear in mind that savoring long pork properly requires that it be accompanied by a good Chianti. That's no obstacle to locavores who live in, say, Tuscan wine country, but for those of us living far away from any vineyards, it means that a cannibalistic diet isn't going to end up being very local in practice.

Whoops. The Anonynous above was me.

"What are the four boxes that start with "Production"? Are these phases of food processing / growing? It almost seems to me they are measuring different chemical outputs..."

They are - that's the emissions of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and HFCs from the production process. The scale is "equivalent tonnes of carbon dioxide" - in other words, maybe there isn't that much methane produced, but methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and therefore it equates to quite a lot of CO2.

I do not think that localism the crux of Pollan's argument. His policy solutions do not revolve around eating local; rather,he sugests we reward farmers for diversifying their crops (and planting cover crops to nourish the soil), bring meat production back to the farm, and refocus agriculture on sun-based energy sources (instead of fossil fuels).

He also proposes a policy of promoting year-round farmers' markets. I realize for anyone not living in California year round farmers' markets may be a bit more difficult: it gets cold, there are no winter crops, etc. However,for those living in California it is frustrating to see your friends, neighbors, and family members buying produce from Mexico, China, Canada, or Florida when perfectly good produce is available year-round. In the same way you want Pollan to be reasonable when pushing for policies that don't make sense elsewhere, Californians are asking their neighbors (and Floridans and Virginians, and Pennsylvanians, and Mainians, and anywhere else it is possible) to focus on a more local bounty, when possible. When it isn't possible, let's prioritize farming techniques nationally and address the fact that environmentally speaking we are eating oil produced food, not sun produced food. That has a lot more to do with meat production and fertilizer use than transportation, but if you live somewhere capable of providing local food purchase it instead.

One word: bullshit. Uninformed and immune towards knowledge (if you really have read Pollan, you'd know why all your objections are red herrings).

That was my comment. And to this:

"I'm asking Pollan to be a political writer when he's really a food writer."

I'm sorry Ezra but I have to say that Pollan is a way better political writer than you are. Try actually reading him rather than putting up straw men.

"Most of our produce was either from Israel or Spain (importing water from the desert?) or from the Netherlands, the land of everlasting twilight."

You have been to Germany and got all your food from Aldi?? Didn't any of the locals show you the way to the Farmers Market?

I think there is always a threat of neo-puritanism in progressive ideas in this culture -- a kind of Calvinist focus on demonstrating personal purity rather than real change that's accessible to everyone.
Some people struggling to put food on the table aren't able to eat local and organic at this time.
But I don't put Pollan in that camp. He is actually pretty practical and a confessed omnivore. His diagnosis of the system seems right on. His solutions may be incomplete and lacking in some policy dimensions. But they do give people, who lack the power to rearrange congressional committees, a way to educate themselves and take some small actions. As long as that doesn't become a barrier to other necessary action and involvement, it is a good thing.

You seem to forget about ways to preserve and conserve foods over the winter.

Colder cimate also means freezing capacities. Duh.

I'm with J.W. Hammer and others: the strongest policy argument for local food is a cultural and spiritual one -- the whole "slow" thing.

This is a valid argument, but it's not necessarily a top political priority.

is it a little strange that everyone who says "it's easy to eat local year round in frozen new england" then goes on to make a laundry list of instructions on gardening, making preserves, sacrificing various fresh fruits and veggies, and buying meat and dairy locally".

maybe this qualifies as easy for some folks, but many of these suggestions are incredibly time consuming and downright impossible for urban dwellers.

end subsidies, do some cap'n'trade - free up the market and let the people's taste buds decide what to buy!